Since you're talking about hoppers, and to confirm the robustness of DGM, I had used EclipseMC as a backup during a bithopper week-long session. My earnings on Eclipse were only 1% less than PPS-equivalent.

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks. In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

<3 hoppers on ECM! Time to cash in DGM benefits!

DGM does not benefit from pool hoppers. I don't know why it says that in the FAQ. That is false though. I think the extra hash rate may be from GPUMAX, they can use up to 200gh here. Most of the hashrate is coming from 2 large miners.

I believe the jump in hash rate is due to hoppers calculating that there's a high probability of us finding blocks. In other words, we're so down on our luck that there's bound to be a bright future.

<3 hoppers on ECM! Time to cash in DGM benefits!

DGM does not benefit from pool hoppers. I don't know why it says that in the FAQ. That is false though. I think the extra hash rate may be from GPUMAX, they can use up to 200gh here. Most of the hashrate is coming from 2 large miners.

As far as the FAQ goes, I should probably reword it, but it does give a benefit when compared with proportional pools and it's possible to end up with more than your share of proportional depending how early the hopper(s) start and when they leave compared to when it's solved.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.

The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event. That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.

Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you. The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number. In fact, the largeness is arbitrary. The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero,"

If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM. Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while. I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for. So, don't expect an immediate response from me.

The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event. That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.

Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you. The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number. In fact, the largeness is arbitrary. The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero,"

If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM. Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while. I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for. So, don't expect an immediate response from me.

Yes I do know what an Actuary is - so saying you are, makes me wonder if you will pass based on your original comment If I remember correctly back when I was at university, the students in stats that were doing actuarial studies had to get distinction level grades or they failed.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLUFreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.isMajority developer of the ckpool codeHelp keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!

The Gambler's fallacy is more concerned with discrete cases or the following event. That was not my original point, and you are mistaking my intentions with a completely separate idea.

Don't let the "large" in the name of the law fool you. The law of large numbers doesn't depend upon what you may think is a "large" number. In fact, the largeness is arbitrary. The law of large numbers simply states that "as the number of trials of a random process increases, the percentage difference between the expected and actual values goes to zero,"

If you really want to continue this debate, we can do so via PM. Although, this is about all I'm going to say about this for a while. I have an actuarial exam that I'm studying for. So, don't expect an immediate response from me.

I agree with kano. The Gambler's Fallacy isn't restricted to just discrete cases. It's exactly what you described - the belief that recent bad luck increases the chances of imminent good luck. For independent events (such as finding blocks) this is false. The way the LLN works is not by anticorrelating proximate events, and the fallacious belief that it is is, once again, the gambler's fallacy.

Of course, regardless of how you call it, the premise - that now is a better time to mine because we haven't found a block for a while - is wrong, and if it was true, the pool would be hoppable.